Is Atheism is a Religion?

[Valka D'Ur]

I think you specified the Bible, not some religion.

Scientific knowledge changes. Religions tend not to want to change to keep in step with modern knowledge. If there's a claim that they actually do, why haven't the religious texts been rewritten to reflect this?

That's what I said, in a nutshell.

The caste system is the reflection of natural forces and processes and before it was corrupted it represented one of the best ways of human organisations.

How is "I'm better than you are because I was born into such-and-such a group" a good way of human organization? I suppose it's tolerable if there is mobility between castes, but if some people are permanently on the bottom no matter what their skills and intelligence may be, that's disgusting.

Also may be of interest:

What's the source for this quote?

It is also natural to be racist, and look down on others. Not sure how one eradicates nature.

No, it isn't. Children are not born having racist ideas. In most cases, racism is taught, or it's an attitude based on "one person of this ethnicity screwed me over, so all of them are like that, they're evil, and I hate them."

I don't know what prompted my mother to hate Middle Easterners. She had that attitude years before her former boss (a Middle Eastern man who ran the hotel where my mother worked as a desk clerk and bookkeeper) fired her for not being "bubbly enough" and hired a woman half her age and with considerably less experience. But she wasn't born like that. She was either taught or developed that attitude based on life experiences or things she heard or saw (I'd have said "read" but she didn't read much).

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

How is "I'm better than you are because I was born into such-and-such a group" a good way of human organization? I suppose it's tolerable if there is mobility between castes, but if some people are permanently on the bottom no matter what their skills and intelligence may be, that's disgusting.

You are spot on. By mobility is how the system worked prior to its corruption.

What's the source for this quote?

http://www.aurobindo.ru/workings/sa/37_13/0001_e.htm

 

[sophie]

I can only speak from pov of general spirituality not from the pov of any specific religion but the main difference actually isnt that there are two systems of thought divided into faith-based and evidence-based (though this distinction may have its value) since in religious/psychological experience one finds plenty of evidence(not verifiable through measurment by means of physical science) and the understanding of physical phenomena has to be often supported by certain beliefs or viewed in larger yet obscure schemes supported by belief. The main difference seems to be that in one instance you study world as a purely physical phenomena while in the other you venture into its nonmaterial part or at least you attempt to view it from its most subtle side.

Spontaneous faith is quite a unique psychic phenomena and cant be equated with mental belief which is product or part of intellectual side of men. Pure psychic faith indeed doesnt need an evidence as it is self-evident just like you dont need evidence for joy or that you are hungry...

Are we sure this guy isn't a writer for Assassin's Creed?

 

[FredLC]

Ok. Sorry for the slow response. I’m quite busy as of late, in my work. To make matters worse, I don’t know if you heard of it, but this city in Brazil where a police full strike has cause a walking dead-esque situation with murders and criminality going rampant?

That is the city where I live. So it’s been staying at home, doing my work in sub-par conditions and never sure I’ll get the resources, and quite a bit of extra effort.

The topping on the pizza is that I had took apart today in my schedule to finish a few online classes I’m behind in and have until Friday to complete, and just today, the freaking website went bonkers. So I’ll get even more pressed for time.

But it made time to post.

So, I’m a little grumpy. I’ll do my best not to vent it here, but if I let off some steam, apologies in advance; contrary to my regular posting habits, I’m thinking as I write instead of planning before, so maybe a little of my mood will squeeze through.

Ah, anyways; here it is:

How can an imagined being be part of cluelessness? Seems you are trying to insert reality into their imagination. I grant that cluelessness may be part of the imagined scenario. I think that you are attempting to equate human cluelessness, which is a reality with their imagined cluelessness. Is it possible to distinguish between what humans write down as fiction and what they actually experience?

We have deliciously different minds! I find it troublesome to truly grasp what you are trying to say here, but is it that the ignorance of the existence of god (cluelessness) does not constrict reality?

If this is what you are saying, I actually go further and say that neither ignorance nor knowledge, no matter how accurate, constrict reality in any way whatsoever. Our struggle to create a model of reality, as accurate as possible, in our minds, is an attempt to retrofit an instruction manual that would allow us to act within reality and increase the odds of favorable outcomes to the facts of life.

God either existing or not existing is irrelevant to our acknowledging of him or not; aspects of reality can be hidden from us, and can be utterly difficulty to uncover, that is why successful scientists in the frontier of knowledge tend to have the finest minds our species have produced.

And truly, it is the point of contemption between the atheists and the religious whether or not god exists; I, personally, think shoehorning god in our model of reality threatens it’s coherence and diminishes it’s accuracy. But I am not even arguing that, because that is not the purpose of this thread; I’m just saying that, within the given parameters of the sentence to which you responded: “If god isn't real but a fictional character, it most definitely is bound by the dictates of humanity, even if part of the fiction is that it isn't.”, than it is truly entirely defined by our imagination, as there are no external parameters to which our mental model should be adjusted.

Can you work within these parameters as to the purpose of the phrase? If you cannot, fine. Just that it changes the discussion for something off-topic. Hope you can see that.

It is not a yes or no question if a person does not know. The answer would be, "I don't know". A human who knows the answer, does not answer no, unless they are lying. Lying is not an answer. I realize that it is quite obvious one does know nothing. Even if it exist, it is still nothing they know.

It is yes or no. “I don’t know” is a response, but not an answer, because it does not tackle the subject at hand. Other than that, did you just ninja-defined that such answer needs to be yes in other to be honest?

I actually think only a believer can answer this question with a 100% certainty, though, as certainty is a characteristic of faith. Wheter or not such certainty is an accurate (or as accurate as currently possible) model of reality is, again, an off-topic issue.

I would not necessarily attribute dishonest to a 100% sure disbeliever, though; a difference in philosophical approach to doubt is the only surefire thing going on. Br that by dishonesty (it’s possible), lack of knowledge or even by informed disagreement, needs to be checked in each case.

Atheism is not secularism. I am not the one inventing imaginary gods. Are you holding religion to have to have god as it's singular belief structure?

Atheism is not secularism, I agree. I Never argued it is either, quite the contrary; I straight up said that god isn’t incompatible with secularism, at all. It’s the religious people whom tend to conflate the two, when calls for secularism are presented in the public sphere.

That’s said, yeah, I do think god is a central tenet of religion, and a unifying characteristic, though I also don’t think it is the singular trait. If you still want to pursue this, you’ll have to explain to me where you are getting at, because we don’t see to disagree much, Except perhaps you accept religions without god?

Name me one. And not atheism so we can’t beg the question and kill this divergent argument by going back to the main topic.

The last two are sort of indicative of any people group. Organization is part of society. I am not sure how you are using liturgy, but it would seem to me that it is just a secular response to an unknown. I guess there are some who claim to know the difference between ritual and liturgy. Does doing either ritual or liturgy make you any more or less part of a religion? I realize that some "closed" religions require it for membership, which is just part of organization. What would compel any individual to come up with their own individual liturgy?

I would think that rallying around the notion there is no god would be sufficient to lump all atheist into a socially accepted group, even if there was no organization. There are those who lump all Christians as one singular group, even though the different sects would probably kill each other to rid the earth of organizational "heresy" via differing ideology. So even religion cannot be compared to religion without the notion of god. Else it is just another organized society.

Liturgy: “the customary public worship performed by a religious group, according to its particular beliefs, customs and traditions”.

So, for me, ritual is the singular action, liturgy is the habit of incurring in several instances of the action.

Neither is necessary for being a person of faith; both are necessary for being religious, at least as far as approaching it’s orthodoxy goes. I know not of a religion without rituals perceived as mandatory.

One can be partially heretical and dismiss mandated behavior, or mix rituals in a syncretic fashion, true, this being quite common here in Brazil regarding Catholicism and afro-originated religions; if the variance is minor it probably go unnoticed, if it is major it may go as far as being a schism.

What would compel someone to come up with their own version. Well, being an individual is the reason in and on itself. See, as religion, and faith in general, lacks correlation with our model of reality (as discussed above), except via the myth itself, It lacks the grounding of a material limitation, something to check against and thus, allows for variation as wild as imaginations goes, bending to personal opinion.

That is why all religions have so many sects and sub-sects and denominations. One for every taste, my friend.

Gravity, OTOH, works by the same rules whenever we go.

And yes, not believing in god is grounds for a common classification of atheists as a “group”, though it’s homogeneity is a very dubious proposition. Like the religious as well. Either way, I was not talking about whether or not atheists can be lumped in a label, but rather, about how groups that decided to unite under that banner have, historically, acted.

Dogmatic, religious devotion that there is no god would make atheism a religion, because it is still centered around a belief that claims to know any god does not exist. Even to the Greek philosophers the only necessity for a "god" was first cause. Would materialism be a religion, because it states material as being it's own miraculous cause? Miraculous as being an unknown means whereby something began. A god being a cop out for this miraculous event. Matter being just as much a cop out if God actually did do it. Do you think that belief in any causality is sufficient to explain what happened?

Dogmatic atheism would be… dogmatic atheism. Again, this is undue centrality. Just like having believes does not necessitate there being a religion – the content of the believe is an important factor – there being dogma does not necessitate there being a religion. Dogmas can as well be related to other topics.

Just because something is a characteristic of religion, it does not mean that religion owns everything that touches it.

Now, listen; I would not mind atheism being a religion. There would be no problem at all, should it fulfil the characteristics. It simply does not. I’m sorry.

Regards .

 

[Samson]

Except perhaps you accept religions without god?

Name me one. And not atheism so we can’t beg the question and kill this divergent argument by going back to the main topic.

Traditional buddhism is atheistic I believe, the Lord Buddha teaching the belief in God(s) is one of the things keeping us in Saṃsāra. Another would be shinto, which believes in spirits but not an all powerful God. Google says "Atheism is coherent with some religious and spiritual belief systems, including Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Syntheism, Raëlism, and Neopagan movements such as Wicca."

 

[FredLC]

I am glad we are toking together, even though I cannot stand the stuff.

Never tried it. I’m boring that way; Though I like to think that I simply enjoy my mind enough to feel no need to alter it.

Makes a cool emoj, though!

The irony of an atheist decrying "Baseless and unearned claims of certainty" is worth savoring. It is what you would expect of a religious person.

Says he, with a distinct lack of response to any of the laid arguments.

Alas, it always comes down to this, doesn’t it? so let me try something different, and build the logical construct:

An skeptic approach is:

1) observe phenomenae;

2) investigate conditions;

3) propose material causality .

The proposal may be correct or incorrect, but it is always grounded in a normal interaction that can be demonstrated or repeated. Phase 3 needs to be changed when the causality proposed fails to correctly account for the phenomenae.

The method is imperfect, as its helmed by humans, and preference and politics might lead someone to insist on flawed proposals, but notice that we have to insert factors external to the method (politics, personal preference, etc…) for the flaw to creep in. Otherwise, the system is coherent.

An atheist is someone who thinks this method applies to the “is there a god” question. We observe the world; we investigate our surroundings; we see no special dispensation to separate the world we observe from the limitations of the laws of physics.

A believer approach is:

1) observe phenomenae;

2) correlate phenomenae with believe.

3) excuse material causality.

Again, a believe can be correct; but as it is not grounded to the observation, the odds of this being the case are bad to begin with, and growing exponentially worse as our knowledge expands to more subtle and less intuitive aspects of reality.

Not saying that believers are dumb. In fact, even believers are skeptics for 99% of their life’s interactions. It's just that for some reason they decide that this, which serves them well most of the time, is arbitrarily inapplicable for some questions.

A religious person is someone who thinks this method applies to the “is there a god” question. You observe the world and exempt causal relation, and thinks the affirmation “god did it” suffices and satisfies. As miracles are accepted, there is no grounding that is inherently able to change your minds, for there will never be a way to say the phenomenae is not explained fully by the proposed correlation. So, loosing the drive to change is something contained within the method.

Again, not judging. But as this thread is about the supposed intrinsic similarity between atheism and religion, well, there it is, my 0,02. The reasons why even if I accept the dubious claims that atheism is dogmatic, or the somewhat correct (but far less revealing than it is hoped for) claim that it is founded over a believe system, still, it is utterly incorrect to relate these two fundamentally different ways to approach knowledge of “transcendental” questions.

Regards .

 

[FredLC]

I count you and Fred as clergy.

J

Damn. And I receive no donations!

Shouldn't my house be tax-free? At least my computers, as the temples of my preaching?

Kidding aside, what someone should do to qualify as a clergy to you? Just voice a strong opinion?

 

[FredLC]

Traditional buddhism is atheistic I believe, the Lord Buddha teaching the belief in God(s) is one of the things keeping us in Saṃsāra. Another would be shinto, which believes in spirits but not an all powerful God. Google says "Atheism is coherent with some religious and spiritual belief systems, including Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Syntheism, Raëlism, and Neopagan movements such as Wicca."

I saw many arguing that traditional Buddhism is a philosophy, not a religion, and that it only turned into a religion on it’s gnostic versions.

As for Shinto, well, being all powerful is a trait of god in Christianity, but as my point is not about Christianity, it’s overall, less powerful entities might fulfill the same role. Spiderman is as much a superhero as superman, even though he can’t lift mountains.

Hinduism has divine entities such as Ganesha, Vishnu, Rama, Krishna, Brahma and Shiva. Too many gods is more accurate.

Isn’t raelism based on the workship of an encarnated messiah called rael, and substituting divine supernatural beings by all powerful extraterrestrial beings called Elhoim, which is in itself a name evoked from traditional religious movements? A clear new age syncretic religion.

Neopagan is too broad for me to comment, but AFAIK, wicca classically worshiped a goddess, though modern incarnation can be more philosophical in nature and uses this only symbolically, just like modern Satanism do (in which case I would not consider it religious either).

About jainism I know nothing except that it preaches extreme pacifism. I read the Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism#God) and it is fascinating, and appears to be the first case I have ever seen of something I would accept as an atheistic religion, as it seens to take a pantheistic approach, but mixed with supernaturalism which makes it not skeptic at all.

But I will look more into it, rest assured!

Regards .

 

[El_Machinae]

Hold on sec. There are people who "know" there is no God? Lol. They must be making that claim purely on the strenght of their beliefs then...

Keep in mind, that the people claiming such knowledge are using a different definition of god than you are. So, the beliefs are based on the definitions. I mean, Jay would say that there are no people adults religion, but that's just because his definition is non-standard.

 

[timtofly]

There are different kinds of nature obviously. Its the one which allows progressive self-manifestation of the spirit aka evolution which is the right to follow and by doing that the unregenerate parts of nature falls off naturally.
The natural divine state seems to be a divine anarchy but till that stage is reached some form of organisation and hierarchy is necessary.

There is no guarantee that the undesirable can equate to the "unregenerate". For social change it takes the matter of will and desire to change who one is. Human will is not a part of the evolution process.

What is to be human has nothing to do with what is to be divine. At the most it is currently an illusion or simulation depending on you view of God.

Scientific knowledge changes. Religions tend not to want to change to keep in step with modern knowledge. If there's a claim that they actually do, why haven't the religious texts been rewritten to reflect this?

That's what I said, in a nutshell.

Religions are re-writing their religious text when it suits them. Perhaps the Bible should not be relegated to a simple religious text? What religion even wrote it?

I keep trying to press the point that God is not even a part of any religion. Saying that God is will always result in you proving your point.

No, it isn't. Children are not born having racist ideas. In most cases, racism is taught, or it's an attitude based on "one person of this ethnicity screwed me over, so all of them are like that, they're evil, and I hate them."

I don't know what prompted my mother to hate Middle Easterners. She had that attitude years before her former boss (a Middle Eastern man who ran the hotel where my mother worked as a desk clerk and bookkeeper) fired her for not being "bubbly enough" and hired a woman half her age and with considerably less experience. But she wasn't born like that. She was either taught or developed that attitude based on life experiences or things she heard or saw (I'd have said "read" but she didn't read much).

Why are you conflating ideology with what is natural? Are you saying that being selfish is something we teach our children? The mistake comes from impressing on them that who they are and their heredity is all important. Being naturally selfish completes the ideology for them. I am not discounting that some people actually do teach the ideology of racism, but that only deepens the natural distrust for people who "are not like us".

Even if one is taught to be tolerant of others, there is still a natural trait to question and yes, distrust what they do not know.

Ok. Sorry for the slow response. I’m quite busy as of late, in my work. To make matters worse, I don’t know if you heard of it, but this city in Brazil where a police full strike has cause a walking dead-esque situation with murders and criminality going rampant?

That is the city where I live. So it’s been staying at home, doing my work in sub-par conditions and never sure I’ll get the resources, and quite a bit of extra effort.

The topping on the pizza is that I had took apart today in my schedule to finish a few online classes I’m behind in and have until Friday to complete, and just today, the freaking website went bonkers. So I’ll get even more pressed for time.

But it made time to post.

So, I’m a little grumpy. I’ll do my best not to vent it here, but if I let off some steam, apologies in advance; contrary to my regular posting habits, I’m thinking as I write instead of planning before, so maybe a little of my mood will squeeze through.

Ah, anyways; here it is:

Hopefully the situation will resolve itself and something better than normalcy will return.

We have deliciously different minds! I find it troublesome to truly grasp what you are trying to say here, but is it that the ignorance of the existence of god (cluelessness) does not constrict reality?

If this is what you are saying, I actually go further and say that neither ignorance nor knowledge, no matter how accurate, constrict reality in any way whatsoever. Our struggle to create a model of reality, as accurate as possible, in our minds, is an attempt to retrofit an instruction manual that would allow us to act within reality and increase the odds of favorable outcomes to the facts of life.

God either existing or not existing is irrelevant to our acknowledging of him or not; aspects of reality can be hidden from us, and can be utterly difficulty to uncover, that is why successful scientists in the frontier of knowledge tend to have the finest minds our species have produced.

And truly, it is the point of contemption between the atheists and the religious whether or not god exists; I, personally, think shoehorning god in our model of reality threatens it’s coherence and diminishes it’s accuracy. But I am not even arguing that, because that is not the purpose of this thread; I’m just saying that, within the given parameters of the sentence to which you responded: “If god isn't real but a fictional character, it most definitely is bound by the dictates of humanity, even if part of the fiction is that it isn't.”, than it is truly entirely defined by our imagination, as there are no external parameters to which our mental model should be adjusted.

Can you work within these parameters as to the purpose of the phrase? If you cannot, fine. Just that it changes the discussion for something off-topic. Hope you can see that.

We agree that what consist of the mind (ignorance or knowledge) does not constrict reality. I would go further and say it cannot even change reality. I am not inclined to claim that what humans endeavor cannot change reality as we know it in so much as reality can change. We do not have shuttles back and forth to the moon. That reality may change if humans so desire and can find a way to carry out that fact. Perhaps it is part of practicality or just the plain truth that some reality will never change. Walking on the "surface" of the sun, whatever the definition of surface entails.

The question is how much a part of reality do we want to even include God in, or if God has to remain outside of reality and can only engage reality by altering what God is.

It is yes or no. “I don’t know” is a response, but not an answer, because it does not tackle the subject at hand. Other than that, did you just ninja-defined that such answer needs to be yes in other to be honest?

I actually think only a believer can answer this question with a 100% certainty, though, as certainty is a characteristic of faith. Wheter or not such certainty is an accurate (or as accurate as currently possible) model of reality is, again, an off-topic issue.

I would not necessarily attribute dishonest to a 100% sure disbeliever, though; a difference in philosophical approach to doubt is the only surefire thing going on. Br that by dishonesty (it’s possible), lack of knowledge or even by informed disagreement, needs to be checked in each case.

The answer seems to beg some commitment to the truth. Stating "I do not know" is a truth. Stating that one knows an entity does not exist, is either relegated that there needs to be some proof, which seems an impossibility. Making up something that does not exist does not count. Both may be equally hard to prove. Or it is relegated to the point that knowing a non-knowable is pointless rhetoric.

Atheism is not secularism, I agree. I Never argued it is either, quite the contrary; I straight up said that god isn’t incompatible with secularism, at all. It’s the religious people whom tend to conflate the two, when calls for secularism are presented in the public sphere.

That’s said, yeah, I do think god is a central tenet of religion, and a unifying characteristic, though I also don’t think it is the singular trait. If you still want to pursue this, you’ll have to explain to me where you are getting at, because we don’t see to disagree much, Except perhaps you accept religions without god?

Name me one. And not atheism so we can’t beg the question and kill this divergent argument by going back to the main topic.

Liturgy: “the customary public worship performed by a religious group, according to its particular beliefs, customs and traditions”.

So, for me, ritual is the singular action, liturgy is the habit of incurring in several instances of the action.

Neither is necessary for being a person of faith; both are necessary for being religious, at least as far as approaching it’s orthodoxy goes. I know not of a religion without rituals perceived as mandatory.

One can be partially heretical and dismiss mandated behavior, or mix rituals in a syncretic fashion, true, this being quite common here in Brazil regarding Catholicism and afro-originated religions; if the variance is minor it probably go unnoticed, if it is major it may go as far as being a schism.

What would compel someone to come up with their own version. Well, being an individual is the reason in and on itself. See, as religion, and faith in general, lacks correlation with our model of reality (as discussed above), except via the myth itself, It lacks the grounding of a material limitation, something to check against and thus, allows for variation as wild as imaginations goes, bending to personal opinion.

That is why all religions have so many sects and sub-sects and denominations. One for every taste, my friend.

Gravity, OTOH, works by the same rules whenever we go.

And yes, not believing in god is grounds for a common classification of atheists as a “group”, though it’s homogeneity is a very dubious proposition. Like the religious as well. Either way, I was not talking about whether or not atheists can be lumped in a label, but rather, about how groups that decided to unite under that banner have, historically, acted.

The whole point has nothing to do with finding a religion without God. The whole issue is taking God out of religion altogether. God does not need religion to establish the reality of God. Humans need a religion to focus their interpretation of the reality of God. I accept that religions hardly have a clue about God. Yes we have a list of attributes that humans have put down about God. That is the human understanding to place God into some definable entity. An elephant is an elephant despite the 20 blind philosophers examining it. Not trying to be crude or over simplistic regarding religion.

Dogmatic atheism would be… dogmatic atheism. Again, this is undue centrality. Just like having believes does not necessitate there being a religion – the content of the believe is an important factor – there being dogma does not necessitate there being a religion. Dogmas can as well be related to other topics.

Just because something is a characteristic of religion, it does not mean that religion owns everything that touches it.

Now, listen; I would not mind atheism being a religion. There would be no problem at all, should it fulfil the characteristics. It simply does not. I’m sorry.

Regards .

My point was the over obsessive revolt to any notion or belief in God. If nothing is there what is the deal with trying to keep people reminded of that point? Why set up a monument, a belief system that constantly indoctrinates humans on the "no God" topic? From my perspective they and the majority of religious thought have the same level of knowledge about God. Nor am I saying that some humans naturally have a tendency to actually know God. To me, God is revealed to all. The choice is left up to all. If there is any inequality that is because humans have deceived themselves and taught others to follow their deception, and religion is the best way to accomplish that, Not atheism. Atheism has no deception as they truly accept there is no God. Unless one does know about God, and accepts atheism. One then has to convince themself that what they know is not true. Which is not hard with what we can observe. Current reality cannot observe God in the physical. It is the mind that the revelation comes. That is where the choice is made and remains. The mind is where humans change their perspective on what can be observed.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

That's a lot of words, saying very little.

 

[Birdjaguar]

What I do not understand is why the caste system outcome? It seems to me it should have been more communistic. Unless that was the natural outcome of several different religions, and no need for central authority.

The West was always about central control and hierarchy did produce levels of society. I do not think that religion was the motivating factor to that end. Religion and government was dying in the west. It seems this new outlook on life, that had nothing to do with central government at all was given a shot at governmental control, and the result was that both the empire, and the belief system changed directions. The first 200 years this Christian thought process was spread all over the known world. There was no central authority, but there were pockets of stronger influence. That Rome became the central authority was no evolution of religion. It was an attempt to jump start the empire.

Judaism/Christianity introduced the idea that time was linear and not cyclical. Creation began and will end and when it does, it is done. Prior, the compelling view was that time and history were cyclical and repeated age after age. That new notion had a profound impact.

In the post Roman west society was ordered by god with kings at the top and peasants and slaves at the bottom. That structure began to break down in the 14th century with the arrival of the plague. Global trade, the Enlightenment and the industrial revolution finished it off.

As for God and creation being distinct. blame that on the Greeks. They are the ones that gave the west the need to substantiate reality with empirical evidence. Not only was Christianity changed by Greek empiricism and Roman imperialism, but it changed the core teachings to fit the diluted version of reality.

So what was changed in Christianity? What was removed or added and how do you know?

I guess Judaism was a caste system, as they thought of themselves as one people group separate from all the rest. God being distinct was not from creation, but because God allowed humans to go their own way, and creation was subject to that choice. The Hebrews were the people group to bring the creation back into the God likeness, it lost. Christians came along immediately after the death of Jesus, telling the world that God changed the Hebrew outlook and now there was no longer any difference in people groups, but all humans were equal. All were being brought back to God, not by a human people group, but by God as a human, in Jesus Christ. The original difference was that the Persians did not accept that God walked away from the creation allowing humans to make their own choices. They never accepted the Hebrew interpretation of the One and only God. I get the impression that the Babylonians and Mesopotamians thought God had left. They kept thinking they could bring God back with images linked to the different attributes of this God. Despite the point that God had left, there was still the notion that without God nothing would exist.

Are you saying that god is not separate from creation? Or are you saying that god and creation are one? or are you saying something else? Being brought back to god certainly implies a separation.

Is the point of everything an illusion that much different than a simulation able to run within the framework of something that cannot be observed or experienced? The point is still what is real and what is not. Nothing is real in a simulation, and nothing is real in an illusion. Reality exist in both as that is the reality that humans perceive inside the framework of either. The difference evolved into the point that Westerners only rely on what they can observe to be true. Eastern thought process never closed to the truth of what can be imagined.

For the Hindus the illusion that we experience as reality is god's dream of separateness and individuality. In the dream we can glimpse the truth behind it and in classic Hinduism, in time we we can wake to the reality that god is all in all and nothing else has permanence. The limitations of consciousness block grasp of what lies beyond its reach. A simulation is different. It copies or mimics something else outside of the simulation. A simulation also implies a separate creator outside of the simulation. That is a fundamentally different view of reality.

It would seem that calling oneself an illusion is just another way to view that God is not around. The ultimate simulation.

Not at all. Not at all. The Hindus, Sufis and Buddhists say that Reality is all around us, within us and without us. God is present all the time, everywhere and there is no escaping it. The self is not real and permanent. The distinction of separateness we experience daily is illusory from the perspective of god. We get to cope.

The western thought process is just now catching up, as they can now accept a quasi simulation experience as long as it offers some physical reason to exist. I guess though if one is going by strict definition of the words, a simulation is based on something real. An illusion is based on a lie or deception. Did the Persians think that the whole thing about God was a lie? That does not make sense while accepting that God was the only existing thing. Neither would it make sense to say a reality was the cause of something that does not exist. Is it plausible that the concept of illusion came from the fact that the Persians could not accept the truth, but accepted it only as a falsehood? Forming the Braham group seems no different than the Hebrews claiming they were the only group chosen by God.

I don't know anything about the ancient Persian religions.

The Hebrews claimed that God told them, in "person" in the form of a light. Light being the ultimate point of the existence of the universe. A universe of light that simulated the Light as opposed to the universe being a false representation of that light. The universe is the physical manifestation of this ultimate Light.

On the vary basis that atheist do not accept a light source beyond what can be observed, they have relegated themselves to only exist in the framework of current reality and not only can they not be a religion, they cannot even escape the light they are a part. There are places in the Bible that maintain we are supposed to be light beings, and that even the concept of angel is a messenger light being able to communicate with God the ultimate Light being. Religion interprets it as the struggle between light and darkness. Religion views Adam as just sinning, disobeying God, but never points out that humans lost their physical part that was light. The light "died" that day. Even if you only want to view the account as metaphor or figurative, it still represents the human choice to give up their light, and break off communication with this ultimate Light we call God. It is not that God has left, it is the choice that we have left God. The ultimate end to that choice is the point that God does not exist. In Hindu, instead of accepting that God does not exist, they just concluded they did not exist.

I would contend that "light" is a metaphor.

 

[timtofly]

Judaism/Christianity introduced the idea that time was linear and not cyclical. Creation began and will end and when it does, it is done. Prior, the compelling view was that time and history were cyclical and repeated age after age. That new notion had a profound impact.

The Hebrews held that God was infinite. Time started and stopped at God's whim. Time was not a perfect circle. They never specified that this reality was the only reality. They did not seem to be very imaginative, but whatever ages there were before and after current time, would not have surprised them. Since Newton was a product of Europe, I guess by extension linear time is "Christian". The church had to sign off on what was or what was not accepted.
As for time being cyclical that comes from the earth orbiting the sun and rotating on a complimentary axis, and the repetition of the calendar. By the time the religions were forming time had been cyclical for a very long time.

In the post Roman west society was ordered by god with kings at the top and peasants and slaves at the bottom. That structure began to break down in the 14th century with the arrival of the plague. Global trade, the Enlightenment and the industrial revolution finished it off.

I am pretty sure the order was god, king/emperor at the top and soldiers, peasants, and slaves at the bottom since before the Greek, Alexander, conquered the area known as the Greek Empire. That the Romans did it is not that much different, and that The Roman Church took up the mantle was hardly anything different than what was going on for centuries.

So what was changed in Christianity? What was removed or added and how do you know?

It is pretty much documented that when Constantine handed the empire to the Roman bishop, that Christianity changed form from what it was. It went from an atheistic private cult to a major religion. Membership went from a personal cognizant choice to infant initiation. Instead of being persecuted and killed, Christians were now given the ability to torture and kill any whom they felt stood in their way. Instead of heresy being dealt with by the Word of God, heretics were those who "stood in the way" and were killed, or forced to change their thinking to that of the religion. That is just some of the major changes that come to mind.

Are you saying that god is not separate from creation? Or are you saying that god and creation are one? or are you saying something else? Being brought back to god certainly implies a separation.

It is the distinction that atheist can say there is no God, even though all of creation is the direct manifestation of God. Simplistically it is being able to see God in creation, and at the same time able to boldly state Creation is just physical material sans God. God and creation are one, only in the similitude of a simulation. It is not a true simulation, as God was never stated to have any physical form, and creation is only a physical form. Technically an allusion of a non physical being could be a physical formation, as an illusion is not a true representation of the original form. The universe is not an illusion of reality though. It is the reality of a reality.

Being "brought back" is the ability to see God in creation. Both the Hebrews and Christians though, taught that the redemption will not be complete until the current time is over.

For the Hindus the illusion that we experience as reality is god's dream of separateness and individuality. In the dream we can glimpse the truth behind it and in classic Hinduism, in time we we can wake to the reality that god is all in all and nothing else has permanence. The limitations of consciousness block grasp of what lies beyond its reach. A simulation is different. It copies or mimics something else outside of the simulation. A simulation also implies a separate creator outside of the simulation. That is a fundamentally different view of reality.

Actually a simulation does not mimic, but may be a copy. That seems to be a misleading definition. Technically a simulation is run to provide different results of the reality being studied. If it were a mere mimic, it would be redundant and not needed. An illusion is even much more in the wrong. Reality is not an illusion. Neither is God. I still consider creation as a part of God, that is the simulation. Reality is the simulation of what God is, if God were a physical entity. But using the term simulation tends to view God as the mirror entity of what the real universe is. I never said that simulation is a proper description. I just prefer it over an illusion which is never a reality. In dream state and waking up, if both are reality which is the real reality? If both are real then dreaming and waking is just the ability to move between the two realities. Dreaming and waking are just metaphors of the reality of what is going on. All of living humanity are only on one side of the reality. When they leave they do not come back.

I understand and grasp the nuances of what Hindu teaches. I just don't accept them. Is that because I am cursed with a western mind set? I do not know. I do not even think the Hebrews grasped the full meaning of who they were and how they fit into creation, but that may be an ethical discussion on divinity and even further off topic. I think that Abraham lived about the same time Hindu was being put down in written form. God claimed to visit him in human form. As for what actually happened is any ones guess. You seem to accept that the what was written about Hindu was a reality. I am not denying that. I am not the one that states the ancient religions are at great odds with each other. Neither do I think that one has to pick and choose between them, as God is very capable of clearly revealing today to each human, as easily as at every moment of the universes existence. Even today it is just as easy to create ones own perspective of God and even if it is misleading can get enough other humans to go along with it to form a major religion.

Not at all. Not at all. The Hindus, Sufis and Buddhists say that Reality is all around us, within us and without us. God is present all the time, everywhere and there is no escaping it. The self is not real and permanent. The distinction of separateness we experience daily is illusory from the perspective of god. We get to cope.

God told the Hebrews why there was no "connection" with God. The connection was in the mind and the evidence is the part of humanity that died (was lost). God called it death, but satan declared that was a lie. That part is no longer a part of reality and the permanent/eternal part that is portrayed in Hindu. Christianity refers to it as the soul, which was not fully flushed out in the New Testament other than a soul was eternal unless God deemed it to be unknown by God and then it was condemned to an eternal death. The teaching on the soul has many interpretations through out Christianity. IMO the self is the mind, which is neither real nor an illusion. Self is the firing of the neurons in the brain, and the formation of the mind. How the brain works was more than likely an unknown to the Hindu authors. It was not even a known to most of the theologians who were part of the formation of Christian thought. The body sleeps at night and the self maintains constant evolution of thought process. The brain stores what is the identity of self until it is no longer capable of doing so. When the body is dead the self is reunited with the soul. That is how I see it. That may not be what mainstream Theologians and Philosophers agree on.

I don't know anything about the ancient Persian religions.

I am not sure any one knows much about them. There was a split between Avestan and Vedic assumingly before 1800 BCE. Zoroastrianism came from Avestan, and Hindu from Vedic. Both languages originated from Indo European. Evidently Persia was still considered a people group, and long before the languages evolved. Whatever beliefs were handed down came from Persia, and I assume Europe, but it seems to me that language spread from the middle east, not Western Europe. We know that Europe had a major people group since before 10,000 BCE. We do not know much about them. Most of the history we know radiated out of the Middle east and particularly Iran and the surrounding area. The middle east was the home of the Old Persians, Babylonians, Mesopotamians, and Chaldeans. I would think that Persia would be the area that divided western thought form eastern thought. What consisted of the great divide seems to be lost on us. Whatever it was, was greater than the Roman and Orthodox schism several thousand of years later in Christianity.

I would contend that "light" is a metaphor.

Of absolute light.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Nice post. It's too late to answer tonight.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

There is no guarantee that the undesirable can equate to the "unregenerate". For social change it takes the matter of will and desire to change who one is. Human will is not a part of the evolution process.

The more we learn about genetics and genetic engineering, human will is going to be a greater part of the evolution process.

It already is. Once you poach the last white rhino or pave over the last habitat for a specific plant that won't grow anywhere else, there won't ever be any more. Human will has already destroyed so many species, and once the last one is gone, that's it.

Religions are re-writing their religious text when it suits them. Perhaps the Bible should not be relegated to a simple religious text? What religion even wrote it?

It doesn't seem to suit them. I'm not talking about trivial instances of rewriting the KJV into more modern English or even my previous example of the Lolcat bible (which isn't even all Lolcat; much of it is in l33t-speek). I'm talking about substantial changes that get rid of the notion of the universe being created in 7 days, of all the instances where people and objects do things that we know can't happen. Like the pillar of salt nonsense. Humans do not turn into pillars of salt.

There's a novel I read a long time ago, which included the story of Lot's wife. That author killed her off by having her run back to get her jewelry box and part of the house fell on her and killed her. The destruction of Sodom itself was attributed to the unfortunate combination of an earthquake, which knocked over an oil lamp and the resulting fire is what destroyed the place. So she does die, but for a much more believable reason and in a way that could kill anyone. How many people die in fires and earthquakes because they just have to save some personal belonging? Far too many.

I keep trying to press the point that God is not even a part of any religion. Saying that God is will always result in you proving your point.

I keep trying to explain that the Old and New Testaments are considered essential elements of the Judaeo-Christian faiths, and God is pretty much one of the major characters in both books. So he may not be part of YOUR religion, but you're going to find a lot of people who disagree with you.

Why are you conflating ideology with what is natural?

Why are you being deliberately obtuse?

Are you saying that being selfish is something we teach our children?

I said that racism is something that we teach children. Stop putting words on my keyboard.

The mistake comes from impressing on them that who they are and their heredity is all important. Being naturally selfish completes the ideology for them. I am not discounting that some people actually do teach the ideology of racism, but that only deepens the natural distrust for people who "are not like us".

Some people are selfish by nature. But my point was people are not born that way. They become that way for some reason later.

My point was the over obsessive revolt to any notion or belief in God. If nothing is there what is the deal with trying to keep people reminded of that point? Why set up a monument, a belief system that constantly indoctrinates humans on the "no God" topic?

What are you even talking about here? You want to complain that atheists are "keeping people reminded" and "setting up monuments"? How are you imagining that we do that?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Some people are selfish by nature. But my point was people are not born that way. They become that way for some reason later.

Have you ever MET children? They are almost universally incredibly selfish and have to be taught to share, to be patient, that they can't always stamp their feet and get what they want, whenever they want it, and that basically the world doesn't revolve around them. You can't just assert that people are not born selfish as if it's a self-evident fact.

 

[FredLC]

Have you ever MET children? They are almost universally incredibly selfish and have to be taught to share, to be patient, that they can't always stamp their feet and get what they want, whenever they want it, and that basically the world doesn't revolve around them. You can't just assert that people are not born selfish as if it's a self-evident fact.

Hmmm... there is a difference between selfishness and egocentrism.

Children have to be taught because their cognitive processes are still forming, and they are not entirely aware of the dimensions of society.

It's not an inherent flaw of character of the human race, but just a formative process.

Selfishness is such flaw, is perceivable after full cognition is achieved, and is a trait of just part of humanity...

Regards .

 

[timtofly]

The more we learn about genetics and genetic engineering, human will is going to be a greater part of the evolution process.

Some humans have a stronger will than others, but I think that is part of child development like you are blaming racism on. If you state racism is not genetic, why would human will be?

It doesn't seem to suit them. I'm not talking about trivial instances of rewriting the KJV into more modern English or even my previous example of the Lolcat bible (which isn't even all Lolcat; much of it is in l33t-speek). I'm talking about substantial changes that get rid of the notion of the universe being created in 7 days, of all the instances where people and objects do things that we know can't happen. Like the pillar of salt nonsense. Humans do not turn into pillars of salt.

There's a novel I read a long time ago, which included the story of Lot's wife. That author killed her off by having her run back to get her jewelry box and part of the house fell on her and killed her. The destruction of Sodom itself was attributed to the unfortunate combination of an earthquake, which knocked over an oil lamp and the resulting fire is what destroyed the place. So she does die, but for a much more believable reason and in a way that could kill anyone. How many people die in fires and earthquakes because they just have to save some personal belonging? Far too many.

I keep trying to explain that the Old and New Testaments are considered essential elements of the Judaeo-Christian faiths, and God is pretty much one of the major characters in both books. So he may not be part of YOUR religion, but you're going to find a lot of people who disagree with you.

Being essential and re-writing people's observations are two different things. Since you did not state which religion wrote the Bible, I would assume there is no religion around that feels compelled to adjust the Bible to modern thinking. I am sure there are myriads of doctrinal statements in a lot of current religions that have replaced the Bible to keep their individual religious beliefs "up to date".

Why are you being deliberately obtuse?

Obviously I am not an expert on what consist of genetic human traits and what a child observes and is taught during their development. Not to mention that people admit that some human traits are just natural to the human experience. Even if a child is not deliberately taught ideology, they can observe it. Being of strong will perhaps they can get past racist thoughts. Or perhaps what is observed just strengthens what they have accepted.

I said that racism is something that we teach children. Stop putting words on my keyboard.

Some people are selfish by nature. But my point was people are not born that way. They become that way for some reason later.

What are you going to do if science proves that racism is genetic?

What are you even talking about here? You want to complain that atheists are "keeping people reminded" and "setting up monuments"? How are you imagining that we do that?

I was not complaining. I was pointing out an observation. I was not including you in any general group. Are you claiming that a person who claims to be an atheist can never be obsessive?

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Given that "secular" is defined as "not connected with religious or spiritual matters.", then the concept of "secularised religion" is oxymoronic.

"Secular" is also defined as "pertaining to an age." It comes from the Latin Saecularis, the adjective form of Saeculum, a term which was sometimes used to refer to a discrete period of time like a century or more often a vaguely defined but very long period. Saeculum is the Latin equivalent of the Greek term "Aion," so "secular" would be a better translation of the term "aionios" than the more common rendering of "eternal." Of course neither term actually (necessarily) means lasting forever, just for a long time or during some indefinitely long period. In the bible the term aionios tends to mean "relating to the next age," whereas secular tends to mean "relating to this current age."

Being unconnected to spiritual matters is a derivative sense of being related to this life rather than the afterlife or messianic era.

This older sense is less common today, but is still used in economics when discussing long term trends, cycles, or effects of policies. It is also used in geology, astrophysics, and atomic physics.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

"Secular" is also defined as "pertaining to an age." It comes from the Latin Saecularis...

This older sense is less common today, but is still used in economics when discussing long term trends, cycles, or effects of policies. It is also used in geology, astrophysics, and atomic physics.

Well that's all very interesting, but doesn't really pertain to the current, general usage of the word now. Tim would really have had to specify if he was using it in some archaic way.

A̶l̶s̶o̶,̶ ̶I̶'̶m̶ ̶s̶u̶r̶p̶r̶i̶s̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶h̶e̶a̶r̶d̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶i̶f̶ ̶"̶s̶e̶c̶u̶l̶a̶r̶"̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶u̶s̶e̶d̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶a̶s̶t̶r̶o̶p̶h̶y̶s̶i̶c̶s̶,̶ ̶a̶t̶ ̶l̶e̶a̶s̶t̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶m̶o̶n̶l̶y̶.

Edit: Never mind, google verifies.